IRAQ WAR: Such unilateral decisions must not be tolerated
By : JEONG CHUN PHUOC, Shah Alam

Email to friend Print article

I FIND the letter by Scott Thong Y.Y. (“Was it so rosy under Saddam?” — NST, April 10) to be a direct insult to the notion of international law and social justice.

The US March 2003 invasion of Iraq raised a fundamental issue under international law because it had no support from the United Nations. The US justification for attacking Iraq and violating its sovereignty was based on two flawed grounds — Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and its alleged support for al-Qaeda.

However, at the end of Bush’s administration, it was revealed that Iraq had no such WMD as alleged. Even the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation could not support Bush’s claim on the al-Qaeda charge.

Recent disclosure via a series of Senate reviews of US pre-war intelligence confirmed that “the Bush administration repeatedly presented intelligence (relating to Iraq’s WMD capabilities) as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent … “.

The results relied upon by Thong in the BBC survey and the ORB survey would have been very different had they been carried out during the early days of the US invasion of Iraq.

Whatever the end results in Iraq today, the US administration under Barack Obama must take serious note of the fact that the UN and the international community will no longer tolerate an Iraq-style approach in resolving any kind of international dispute.

And again from NST Letters 14 April 2009, who at least acknowledges Saddam’s badness. I have a minor correction for him that I don’t know if I should send in to NST:

I REFER to Scott Thong Yu Yuen’s response (“Was it so rosy under Saddam?” — NST, April 10) to Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir’s comments on the Iraq war (“Invasion can’t be justified” — NST, April 9).

Thong justifies the US invasion of Iraq by stating that most of the killings in Iraq were caused by al-Qaeda (whom the Iraqis hate), that the US has brought democracy and peace to Iraq, and that Saddam Hussein was such a monster that any other person ruling Iraq would have been better.

Yes, al-Qaeda had a hand in the killings of civilians in Iraq. But does this justify the invasion by the US and does it justify the atrocities of the US on Iraqi soil?

Let’s talk about the al-Qaeda presence in Iraq. Why did these attacks happen, not during Saddam’s reign, but during the US occupation?

A simplistic answer would be that they hate Americans. But one must also understand that the chaos that exists in Iraq today is because of the invasion.

The US occupation, which succeeded in toppling Saddam but not in providing a strong government, has left Iraq in chaos, with clashes between the Shia majority and the Sunni, Kurd and Christian minorities, making it easier for the infiltration of al-Qaeda agents into the country.

Thong also claimed that the Iraq war has brought more peace and freedom compared with 30 years of despotism and deprivation under Saddam.

No one is saying that Saddam is a saint; we acknowledge he committed atrocities against Shia and Kurds.

But he was also responsible for making Iraq a strong country in the Middle East, providing universities, museums and hospitals. All of these were destroyed by the US.

I do not know which “more peace and freedom” Thong is referring to, when even the simplest action, such as teenagers going out on a date, allowed under Saddam’s reign, is now a crime.

Look at the atrocities committed by the US. Was it not the US that was responsible for the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison?

What about the Mahmudiyya massacre, where five US soldiers killed an entire family, then gang-raped, murdered and set on fire a 14-year-old girl?

At the end of the day, the responsibility for the situation in Iraq, with the loss of lives, the infiltration of terrorist organisations and the destruction of national heritage and infrastructure, must lie with the decision of President George W. Bush to invade Iraq in 2003.

THE letter “Was it so rosy under Saddam” (NST, April 10) is an excellent example of how shrewd one can be arguing about an issue, in this case, the Iraq War, and pretend to make sense out of nothing. That’s what I think Scott Thong Yu Yuen is all about.

The thrust of his argument was basically: how can anyone argue that Bush was a murderer when Saddam Hussein was even worse? And he sought to defend his premise by saying that Saddam killed more people than George W. Bush did.

But surely what we are talking about is not how many died under Bush and Saddam, but whether Bush had the legal authority to invade Iraq, a sovereign country.

Otherwise, where is the legal justification for the Americans killing Iraqis (under whatever name) whom he called “terrorists”, who died resisting the invasion? If they had not entered Iraq, would the question of how many Americans and Iraqis had been killed have arisen at all?

Thong cannot say that Bush entered Iraq to save the Iraqis from Saddam. Where is the international law that allows one country to invade another to save its people under tyranny, so-called, in the absence of any imminent threat to the invader and without a United Nations sanction?

If that is permissible, then what would Thong say if the Russians invaded the US because they wanted to free blacks from the tyranny of whites? Would he say that would be right, too?

It’s strange indeed that Colin Powell, former US secretary of state, did not tell the UN that he had solid proof that Saddam was killing his own people, but instead said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which has never been proven. In fact, it has been admitted by the US that the information was utter rubbish.

Even if we go along with Thong’s argument that Bush entered Iraq to save it from Saddam, can this be true? Millions were being killed in the civil strife in Rwanda but Bush did not lift a finger to save any of them.

So, putting the two together, we must conclude that the Americans invaded Iraq not to save the Iraqis but to save Iraq’s oil for themselves, which they now say they are justified in taking as the Iraqis have to compensate them for giving them their so-called “freedom”.

It’s basically pointless to continue arguing, as the mindset of the majority in Malaysia is that America (and the Jews, somehow) is fundamentally evil and cannot possibly do anything for the sake of good.

13 Responses to “More Replies to Scott’s NST Letters on Iraq”

of course you don’t have the interest to respond.. coz your tiny narrow minded US+jews licking brain has absolutely nothing to counter points made by those replies.you just made yourself plain stupid with your letters sent to nst.. it must be sad to be in your shoes.. thinking that you alone can change the view of all malaysians with regards to illegal invasion of UShit on iraqis soil..

I don’t think I could ever change the views of Malaysians, or Muslims and liberals worldwide for that matter. However, what I can do is influence a few people to a different way of thinking.

Besides, I have many other battles to join – like mocking BN and debunking global warming.

And I’m pretty please, not sad – with each ‘stupid’ letter of mine that gets published, more and more my renown as Malaysia’s Leading Neocon is solidly cemented. The son of Dr M himself took up my challenge, dude!

Whereas if I were to join the usual anti-US, pro-BN chorus, my amazing voice would be drowned in the parroting.

(By the way, BN is the local political coalition in power, in case you didn’t know, Herr German.)

narrowminded people, bob? does that include you? change the mind of all malaysians? all? did you really believe all malaysians are narrowminded? that’s pathetic. if you’re malaysian, that’s sad. if you’re not, that’s insulting.

OK Scott, nice try, but no cigar. Just pack up the family and move to Indiana! I’ll get the guest room ready for you and you can “drink lots of tea” and become a “Right Wing Extremist” with the rest of us. 🙂

You did a good job, but somehow these people won’t get it until they are living under threat of death unless they use a government commode.